Skip to main content

The Emergence of the Modern State

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: European Culture and Society ((EUROCS))

Abstract

Seventeenth-century political theorists were addressing the inhabitants of a continent where the unity symbolized by the papacy and the Holy Roman Empire had vanished, where the myth of a universal Christendom had been replaced by separate and sovereign states whose claims to power were derived from inside the political community, not from an external and transnational authority. These emerging states increasingly wielded their territorial power with a monopoly over the use of physical coercion and with a moral authority separate from either divine sanction on the one hand, or mere brute force on the other. And by the end of the century, these same sovereign states would anchor their existence not in the person of an individual ruler or rulers, but in a set of institutional structures whose public power continued even as individual magistrates passed from the scene. By 1700 neither the people nor the prince defined states which had become impersonal and theoretical entities, higher communities whose existence transcended the imprint of individuals and even status groups.1 By 1700 sovereignty inhered not in the prince, as had been the case at the opening of the century, nor in the popular will, as evidenced in some countries towards the end of the century, but in a particular order of continuous public authority, a final and absolute judicial entity divorced from the flesh and allied to the realm of abstraction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. On the characteristics of the state see Antony Black, Political Thought in Europe, 1250–1450 (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 186–7.

    Google Scholar 

  2. F. H. Hinsley, Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1986), p. 142.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism (Princeton, NJ, 1994), p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Nashville, TN, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Richard Cox, ‘Grotius’, in History of Political Philosophy, ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey (Chicago, 1987), p. 387.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, trans. Francis W. Kelsey (Indianapolis, IN, 1925), p. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck (Cambridge, 1991), p. 109.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See James Tully’s introduction to Samuel Pufendorf, On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law, trans. Michael Silverthorne (Cambridge, 1991), p. xx.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See Craig L. Carr’s introduction to The Political Writings of Samuel Pufendorf, trans. Michael J. Sadler (Oxford, 1994), pp. 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Of the Law of Nature and Nations, in Political Writings, pp. 151–2. See also J. W. Gough, The Social Contract (Oxford, 1957), pp. 119–20.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brad S. Gregory, introduction to Tractatus theologico politicus, trans. Samuel Shirley (New York, 1989), pp. 27, 31.

    Google Scholar 

  12. For the most recent biographical sketch, see W. N. A. Klever, ‘Spinoza’s Life and Work’, in Don Garrett (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 13–53. Also Gregory, introduction to Tractatus theologico politicus, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Robert Rowen, John de Witt (Princeton, NJ, 1978); Israel, The Dutch Republic, pp. 726–38.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Roger Scruton, Spinoza (Oxford, 1986), pp. 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Alan Donogan, Spinoza (Chicago, 1988), p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Errol E. Harris, Spinoza’s Philosophy: An Outline (Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1992), p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jeremy Bentham quoted in Maurice Cranston, ‘Human Rights, Real and Supposed’, in D. D. Raphael (ed.), Political Theory and the Rights of Man (Bloomington, IN, 1967), p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brian Tierney, ‘Origins of Natural Rights Language, 1150–1250’, History of Political Thought, 10 (1989), 615–46.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Richard Dagger, ‘Rights’, in Political Innovation and Conceptual Change (Cambridge, 1989), p. 295.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Patrick Collinson, ‘Religion and Human Rights: The Case of and for Protestantism’, in Olwen Hufton (ed.), Historical Change and Human Rights (New York, 1995), p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Richard Tuck, Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development (Cambridge, 1979), p. 66.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Peter Jones, Rights (New York, 1994), pp. 73–4.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See the discussion in John Yolton, A Locke Dictionary (Oxford, 1990), pp. 242–3.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bill of Rights, printed in Brian Blakely and Jacquelin Collins (eds), Documents in British History, 2 vols (New York, 1993), 2: 2–4.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See the discussion in Iain Hampshire-Monk, A History of Modern Political Thought (Oxford, 1992), esp. pp. 2–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Johann P. Sommerville, Thomas Hobbes: Political Ideas in Historical Context (London, 1992), p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  27. G. MacDonald Ross, Leibniz (Oxford, 1984), p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Leibniz, ‘The Common Concept of Justice’, in Patrick Riley (ed.), Leibniz: Political Writings (Cambridge, 1988), p. 47.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Filmer, ‘Observations Concerning the Original of Government’, in Johann P. Sommerville (ed.), Patriarcha and Other Writings (Cambridge, 1991), p. 184.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 1998 W. M. Spellman

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Spellman, W.M. (1998). The Emergence of the Modern State. In: European Political Thought 1600–1700. European Culture and Society. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27200-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics